USA v. Rigoberto Martinez-Flores

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 23-11652
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
RIGOBERTO MARTINEZ-FLORES,
Defendant-Appellant.
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
D.C. Docket No. 9:22-cr-80182-AMC-1
____________________
USCA11 Case: 23-11652 Document: 31-1 Date Filed: 11/15/2023 Page: 1 of 7

-- 1 of 7 --

2 Opinion of the Court 23-11652
Before WILSON, NEWSOM , and L UCK , Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Rigoberto Martinez-Flores appeals his total sentence of 24
months’ imprisonment with three years of supervised release for
illegal entry into the United States after deportation. Martinez-Flo-
res argues that his above-guidelines sentence was procedurally er-
roneous and substantively unreasonable. He argues that the dis-
trict court procedurally erred by not adequately explaining its sen-
tence and by failing to properly consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
factors. He also argues that his sentence is substantively unreason-
able because the court focused only on deterrence and ignored
other relevant sentencing factors.1
The Supreme Court has instructed that an appellate court
reviewing a sentence must first ensure that there are no procedural
errors and then consider the sentence’s substantive reasonableness.
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). We will therefore
1 We review the reasonableness of a sentence for abuse of discretion, which includes
checking for both procedural error and substantive reasonableness. United States v.
Williams, 526 F.3d 1312, 1321–22 (11th Cir. 2008). The party challenging a sentence
bears the burden of showing that the sentence is unreasonable. Id. at 1322. Where a
defendant challenges a sentence on procedural grounds based on the adequacy of the
district court’s explanation, we review de novo, even in the absence of a timely ob-
jection at sentencing. See United States v. Oudomsine, 57 F.4th 1262, 1265 (11th Cir.
2023); 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c)(2).
USCA11 Case: 23-11652 Document: 31-1 Date Filed: 11/15/2023 Page: 2 of 7

-- 2 of 7 --

23-11652 Opinion of the Court 3
address Martinez-Flores’s arguments in that order. For the reasons
that follow, we affirm the district court’s sentence.
I
To determine whether a district court committed a proce-
dural error in sentencing a defendant, this Court asks, as relevant
here, if the district court “fail[ed] to consider the § 3553(a) factors,
. . . or fail[ed] to adequately explain the chosen sentence—including
an explanation for any deviation from the Guidelines range.” Id.
Martinez-Flores argues that the district court erred in both re-
spects. We disagree.
While a district court must “set forth enough” explanation
in its sentencing decision “to satisfy the appellate court that [it] has
considered the parties’ arguments and has a reasoned basis for ex-
ercising [its] own legal decision-making authority,” Rita v. United
States, 551 U.S. 338, 356 (2007), the explanation doesn’t need to be
a specific “length and amount of detail.” United States v. Ghertler,
605 F.3d 1256, 1262 (11th Cir. 2010). Furthermore, the district
court doesn’t need to state that it has explicitly considered each §
3553(a) factor individually. United States v. Ortez-Delgado, 451 F.3d
752, 758 (11th Cir. 2006).
Here, the district court did not commit procedural error be-
cause it adequately explained its upward variance and application
of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. To start, the district court artic-
ulated that it had carefully considered the record “and the statutory
factors set forth in 3553(a).” The district court also stated that it
“considered the statements of all parties” and found that “a
USCA11 Case: 23-11652 Document: 31-1 Date Filed: 11/15/2023 Page: 3 of 7

-- 3 of 7 --

4 Opinion of the Court 23-11652
guideline sentence [was] insufficient in this case.” Finally, the dis-
trict court noted that Martinez-Flores’s immigration history (in-
cluding a prior conviction for illegal reentry that resulted in a 15-
month sentence), his criminal history, and the apparent lack of de-
terrence provided “ample basis” to vary upward. These explana-
tions are sufficient to allow this Court to “engage in the meaningful
review envisioned by the Sentencing Guidelines.” United States v.
Parks, 823 F.3d 990, 997 (11th Cir. 2016) (citation omitted). We
hold, therefore, that there was no procedural error.
II
On substantive-reasonableness review, we may vacate the
sentence only if we are left with the “definite and firm conviction
that the district court committed a clear error of judgment in
weighing the § 3553(a) factors” to arrive at an unreasonable sen-
tence based on the facts of the case. United States v. Irey, 612 F.3d
1160, 1190 (11th Cir. 2010) (en banc) (citation omitted). A district
court abuses its discretion when it (1) fails to consider relevant fac-
tors that were due significant weight, (2) gives significant weight to
an improper or irrelevant factor, or (3) commits a clear error of
judgment in considering the proper factors. Id. at 1189 (quotation
marks and citation omitted). We consider whether a sentence is
substantively unreasonable under the totality of the circumstances
and in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. Williams, 526 F.3d at
1322. While the district court is required to evaluate all the
§ 3553(a) factors, the weight it gives to each factor is within its dis-
cretion. United States v. Ramirez-Gonzalez, 755 F.3d 1267, 1272–73
USCA11 Case: 23-11652 Document: 31-1 Date Filed: 11/15/2023 Page: 4 of 7

-- 4 of 7 --

23-11652 Opinion of the Court 5
(11th Cir. 2014). The district court has discretion to attach greater
weight to one factor over another. United States v. Rosales-Bruno,
789 F.3d 1249, 1254 (11th Cir. 2015). Unjustified reliance on any
one of the § 3553(a) factors may be indicative of an unreasonable
sentence. United States v. Pugh, 515 F.3d 1179, 1191 (11th Cir. 2008).
But imposition of a sentence well below the statutory maximum
penalty is an indicator of reasonableness. United States v. Croteau,
819 F.3d 1293, 1310 (11th Cir. 2016).
The factors the district court must consider include the na-
ture and circumstances of the offense and the history and charac-
teristics of the defendant; the need for the sentence imposed to re-
flect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law,
and to provide just punishment for the offense as well as to afford
specific and general deterrence; and the need to avoid unwarranted
sentence disparities among defendants with similar records who
have been found guilty of similar conduct. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
While the district court should consider and properly calculate the
advisory guidelines range, it is permitted to give greater weight to
other § 3553(a) factors. Rosales-Bruno, 789 F.3d at 1259. The district
court may also “consider facts that were taken into account when
formulating the guideline range for the sake of a variance.” United
States v. Dougherty, 754 F.3d 1353, 1362 (11th Cir. 2014) (citation
omitted).
While a district court must consider the § 3553(a) factors in
determining a sentence, it is not required to state in its explanation
that it has evaluated each factor individually. Ortiz-Delgado, 451
USCA11 Case: 23-11652 Document: 31-1 Date Filed: 11/15/2023 Page: 5 of 7

-- 5 of 7 --

6 Opinion of the Court 23-11652
F.3d at 758. An acknowledgment by the district court that it has
considered the § 3553(a) factors is sufficient. United States v. Turner,
474 F.3d 1265, 1281 (11th Cir. 2007). A court selecting a sentence
outside the guidelines must have a justification “sufficiently com-
pelling to support the degree of variation.” Gall, 552 U.S. at 50.
The justification for a variance must also be adequately explained
to “allow for meaningful appellate review and to promote the per-
ception of fair sentencing.” Id. In general, the further a sentence
falls outside the guideline range, the more compelling the court’s
explanation must be. Id. Ultimately, the court must explain the
sentence with enough detail to satisfy the appellate court that it has
considered the arguments of the parties and has a reasoned basis
for its decision. Rita, 551 U.S. at 356.
The district court’s sentence here is substantively reasonable
because it properly weighed the § 3553(a) factors when it found
that Martinez-Flores should receive an upward variance due to his
prior deportations and conviction for illegal entry as well as his
criminal history. As noted above, the district court stated that, in
determining the appropriate sentence, it considered the § 3553(a)
factors. Further proof of the district court’s consideration is its dis-
cussion of Martinez-Flores’s immigration and criminal history.
That discussion evidences the district court’s consideration of the
“nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and char-
acteristics of the defendant.” 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1). Martinez-Flo-
res’s contention that the district court “focused solely on deter-
rence” is without merit. And though he argues that the district
court didn’t consider sentence disparity, our case law indicates that
USCA11 Case: 23-11652 Document: 31-1 Date Filed: 11/15/2023 Page: 6 of 7

-- 6 of 7 --

23-11652 Opinion of the Court 7
the district court didn’t have to state specifically that it considered
that factor so long as it stated that it considered all the factors. As
already explained, the district court did so. And even if it weighed
the deterrence factor more heavily, we cannot say that it abused its
discretion in doing so.2 Finally, the fact that Martinez-Flores’s 24-
month sentence is substantially lower than the statutory maximum
sentence of 10 years is evidence of reasonableness. See 8 U.S.C. §§
1326(a), (b)(1). Under the totality of the circumstances, we hold
that the sentence is substantively reasonable.
Because there was no procedural error in the district court’s
sentencing of Martinez-Flores, and because the sentence is substan-
tively reasonable, we AFFIRM the district court’s sentence.
AFFIRMED.
2 It is unsurprising that a district court would consider deterrence more heavily
here, given (1) that Martinez-Flores had been removed on four previous occa-
sions and (2) that a 15-month prison sentence imposed as part of one of those
removals seemed not to have deterred him from reentering illegally.
USCA11 Case: 23-11652 Document: 31-1 Date Filed: 11/15/2023 Page: 7 of 7

-- 7 of 7 --